I write primarily about the U.S. public and private retirement system. Trained in economics (1999 PhD from MIT), I serve as the William Karnes Professor of Finance and Director of the Center for Business and Public Policy at the University of Illinois. I am also Associate Director of the Retirement Research Center at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Previously, I served as Senior Economist with the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, as staff to the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security, and as a Member of the Social Security Advisory Board. I am also a Trustee for TIAA-CREF, a Fortune 100 financial services firm serving the not-for-profit sector.

What the NRA is Assuming (and Why They are Wrong)

Like millions of Americans, I was deeply shaken by the horrible tragedy that unfolded at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown Connecticut one week ago today. As a father, as an American – simply, as a human being – I was horrified by the thought that anyone could be capable of gunning down innocent and helpless children. My rage toward the killer was outweighed only by the terrible sadness for the children and deep sympathy for their families.

As the hours and days have gone by, however, my raw emotional response has slowly – if not fully successfully – made some room for my inner economist to begin to examine the situation from an analytical perspective.

So let me ask a simple question: “Would America’s children be safer if we had more guns, or fewer guns?”

I would like to assume that, with the exception of a few sociopaths, everyone wants our children to be safer. I do not subscribe to the extremist rhetoric from either side that assumes they are the only ones with the moral high ground and that the “other side” is somehow anti-kids. Rather, I think both sides agree on the goal – to keep our kids safe – but have a very different view of how to get there.

But who is right? Would our children be safer with more guns or fewer guns?

To provide some insight, I would like to adapt a simple model that is used to discuss tax policy (stay with me here!) – the “Laffer curve.” (Click here for information on the Laffer curve). See the small graph in the upper right of this post to see it adapted to thinking about guns.

If there were zero guns available in the U.S., then by definition there would be zero gun-related deaths. Starting from zero, as the number of guns increases, the frequency of gun related deaths would surely rise, at least initially. But it probably would not rise forever.

According to the NRA, in such a world, criminals would be reluctant to commit a crime because they know that they would be putting themselves in grave danger. Or even if they did, an armed good guy would stop them.

What this means is that if gun violence is low at low levels of gun ownership, and also low at high levels of gun ownership, then there must be a horrible “peak” in between where the number of gun-related deaths is at its highest (the peak).

We have over a quarter of a billion guns in the U.S. The question is whether this is above or below the peak. If it is below the peak, then more guns cause more gun-related deaths, and deaths would decline if we had more effective gun control laws. In contrast, if we are above the Peak, then small decreases in the number of guns can actually cause more deaths. Relatedly, if we are above the Peak, then increasing the number of guns can reduce the number of gun-related deaths. This is what the NRA seems to believe.

This is a simplistic model. But it does provide an important insight: theoretically, gun control could make us safer or it could make us less safe. Gun control advocates are implicitly assuming we are to the left of the peak. Gun rights advocates are implicitly assuming we are to the right of the peak.

So, what does the evidence say?

The good news is that it is possible to test this. The bad news is that it is very hard to do it well. One cannot simply assert that “in country X, they have tighter gun control laws and also fewer gun deaths, so therefore fewer guns causes fewer deaths.” To do so would be to ignore countless other factors – cultural, religious, legal, economic, demographic – that might cause country X to have fewer deaths and also cause them to pass more stringent gun control laws.

Fortunately, some economists have written good papers on gun control. (Sadly, other economists have written bad papers on gun control, meaning that they are sloppy, confuse correlation with causation, and therefore should not be used to guide policy debates.)

University of Chicago economist John Lott is the most well-known researcher on the issue. His findings are easily summarized by the name of his book “More guns, less crime.” In other words, Lott believes we are way past the peak and that people would likely be safer if we had fewer restrictions on guns. As is often the case when someone writes something so provocative, Lott’s research has come under attack. A summary of the controversies and criticisms can be found here.

Aside from just attacking Prof. Lott’s work, others have tried to examine this issue on their own. In my opinion, the single best study on this topic was conducted by Prof. Mark Duggan, a Harvard-trained Ph.D. in economics who is now a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. His paper, “More Guns, More Crime” was published in one of the most elite peer-reviewed economics journals in the world. He finds that “changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related” (thus, his title – more guns lead to more crime.) Importantly, he also finds that “this relationship is almost entirely driven by the relationship between lagged changes in gun ownership and current changes in homicide.” This is really important because it is evidence that this correlation comes about because guns lead to more homicides, rather than an increase in homicides leading more people to buy guns.

The Duggan study also specifically examines the Lott study. He agrees that, theoretically, concealed carry laws could increase the likelihood that potential victims could carry a gun, and thus reduce the homicide rate (my simple model above). However, he concludes that he finds “no evidence that counties with above-average rates of gun ownership within CCW states experienced larger declines in crime than low-ownership counties did, suggesting either that gun owners did not increase the frequency with which they carried their guns or that criminals were not being deterred.” In other words, there is no evidence to support the NRA’s view.

I came into this debate over the past week with an open mind. My reading of the evidence, however, suggests that more guns cause more crime, and that concealed carry laws would not reduce crime.

Our nation may still decide not to restrict guns because of the Second Amendment. But if so, let’s at least do it with our eyes open. We should not be pretending that we are helping kids by promoting gun ownership.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

First, my compliments to Mr. Brown for a well-reasoned article and an approach that others may wish to adapt. Second, as is so often the case because none of us has first-hand knowledge of the facts upon which analysis is based and conclusions drawn, Mr. Brown relies upon Prof. Duggan’s work. Prof. Duggan has, indeed, impressive credentials (as does Mr. Brown and, University of Chicago economist John Lott, notably absent the title of Professor). Prof. Duggan is quoted as stating “no evidence that counties with above-average rates of gun ownership within CCW states experienced larger declines in crime than low-ownership counties did, suggesting either that gun owners did not increase the frequency with which they carried their guns or that criminals were not being deterred.” The questions that need to be asked: (a) Was Prof. Duggan thorough in his research and what evidence did he consider and what did he discard? (b) Is there a measure other than “above-average rates of gun ownership” that should be reviewed? (c) Isn’t the better barometer to be considered the rates of concealed weapons permits issued or, better, the incidence of actual concealed weapon carry per capita? For reference, I am an attorney, the 99dollarattorney.com, not an economist and not a member of the NRA. I own a .22 caliber target pistol and a over/under shotgun for skeet. I have not hunted (and don’t care to do so). In other words, I am not a gun enthusiast or one championing the 2nd Amendment. I admire and love the economic principles Mr. Brown applies and which I did not earlier consider (the notion of a peak at which fewer or more guns might make things safer or less safe). I happen to have heard (likely due to my former residence in Cobb County, Georgia) that the City (not county) of Kennesaw, Georgia, had an ordinance making concealed carry mandatory (or something to that effect and I won’t stop to research it). I have heard (and cannot verify) that the crime rate in this City is substantially lower since the passage of this ordinance. In recent days, I have heard also of a few schools where administrators carry or have access to guns and of certain areas of the USA where gun violence is low (certain areas of Texas where gun ownership and open carry is higher, for example). I suggest that Mr. Brown’s analysis be used by our national and State leaders and the citizenry with all available data, not just what Prof. Duggan found in his study on this subject (as I cannot, nor can Mr. Brown verify the level of study and research undertaken by Prof. Duggan or the criteria he used to define above-average rates of gun ownership or increases in crime). Further, the analysis of such data must include some consideration of location and other factors and the type of crime (gun involved or used in the commission or defense or both, crime against person known to the assailant vs. crime against strangers, single homicide, single homicide with additional unintended victim(s), homicide with additional intended target victims, etc.). Again, the type of analysis as put forth by Mr. Brown to help ascertain if more or fewer guns would or might make us and our children safer OR less safe (depending on which course was taken) SHOULD be undertaken with submissions of data by anyone with good hard data. Kudos to you, Mr. Brown. Would you consider my comments and reply or, more importantly, pass them along to those who might actually do something using your analysis model?

I am also trying to keep an open mind to this discussion. I see a problem with your model though. Not all guns owners are equal. Some gun owners use their guns legitimately and make sure their guns don’t get stolen by criminals. Others use their guns for criminal activity or allow them to be stolen by criminals. If the number of guns in the population increases more in the hands of the former than the later, then gun violence should decrease. Basically I like the idea you suggest with the model, but I think it is too simple of a model and assumes that increases in the number of guns is equal for both groups (probably a continuum in reality) of gun owners. What the NRA proposed was to increase the former group, while hoping this would not increase gun ownership in the later group.

Eric, your comments are valid, yet the model is no less correct based on data. The end result changes based on data. The notion that there IS a peak point before which additional guns increases deaths and after which more guns decreases deaths makes complete sense. WHERE that peak is and how we determine where it is, what data to use and how to either get well away from the peak either by fewer OR by more guns (yes, in the hands of the responsible owners as you put it) are for discussion, analysis, and determination based on many factors (not the least of which is the practical aspects and, yes, the Constitutional implications). Economics (cost) also matters to whether any plan can and will be implemented.

Nathan, this is self-evidently incorrect. Police and other security agencies also have weapons. In most countries this is considered adequate, and given that per capita gun fatalities are far higher in the US than most other comparable countries, one has to wonder what it is in the American psyche that prevents people from concluding that security forces can look after them.

Consideration also needs to be given to the statistical evidence that gun ownership in a household increases the chances of suicide and of fatal injuries to and by children.

@david delugas You like data and continuums but there is no evidence in support of the model from the Duggan study.

Duggan writes that there is no evidence that concealed carry decreases violence. Our author offered that finding in support of the conclusion that we’re in the ownership range of increased guns not reducing crime.

The author wonders aloud whether criminals are ignoring the increased guns but never asks whether criminal possession impedes concealed carry and limits crime. Duggan had no idea how many criminals were carrying guns, yet criminal possession is obviously a component of overall possession that deters crime. (Criminal possessors do not patronize guns and ammo and they do not buy at gun shows. Licensees who have undergone background checks do those things.) Unless you want to argue that criminals are less likely to respond to armed robbery (for example) by shooting the guy than are licensees?

No evidence for the NRA view? Lott and Landes write that mass shootings occur where guns are banned. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund# The NRA suggests that permitting guns on campus and elsewhere will decrease the incidence of mass shootings. It is not an unreasonable conclusion. Far more certain is the conclusion that a mass shooter will pick someplace other than the elementary school for his rampage; current policy leaves elementary school as the low-hanging fruit for mass killing.

Stephen, You are absolutely right that we do not have great evidence on gun ownership specifically among criminals. And as I have said in response to other comments, it does matter who owns the guns. If one believes that criminals will never give up their guns, and that mass shooters will always have access to guns no matter what we do, then one could indeed conclude that it might be better that we have armed good guys around. But what evidence we do have is pretty straightforward – when there are more guns, there is more crime.

I do not find the Lott/Landes argument even remotely compelling for several reasons. First, (and THANKFULLY), mass shootings are relatively rare. So to get statistical significance on anything related to them is quite hard. Second, there are plenty of simple models available to show that if you have two communities – one is gun free and one is not, a rational criminal will move to the gun-free one. Thus, the gun-toting community has a negative externality on the gun free one. But this is NOT the same as suggesting that if ALL areas were gun free, that mass killings would rise.

Jeffrey (moving from Mr. Brown), I am smiling at the simplicity (and correctness, in my view) of the observations that (a) any rare occurrence does not lend itself to statistical analysis due to the spareness of the data, (b) more guns, more crime means just that and nothing more, but on a national basis, such that all the other data and other conclusions from that data can be true as well, such as (1) crime occurs more in areas where guns are not allowed legally, (2) crime occurs more in more urban areas (on a per capita basis) and this may have more to do with other factors such as economics than the absolute number or per capita number of guns and (3) mass killings, being rare, would not go up even if all areas were gun free (based on the belief, which cannot be confirmed, that the INCIDENCE of mass killings is related to the gun free areas rather than the conclusion that does seem related that WHEN there is a mass killing it takes place in a gun free area). However, what many seem to be suggesting is that, making more gun free zones (meaning laws that make it illegal to have a gun in certain areas), simply means that more will be vulnerable WHEN a mass killer goes on a rampage. Agreed?

I would like to add that I think we can change the shape of this curve through more responsible gun ownership/sales. Among other things, guns should be secured such that they cannot be easily stolen and all sales should require background checks.

Thanks, both David and Eric, for very thoughtful comments. A few quick reactions. First, I meant no disrespect to John Lott by failing to refer to him as Professor – in fact, I may go in and edit this post to fix that, as no professional slight was intended. Second, this model is admittedly highly simplistic. One could complicate it in many directions – not the least of which would be to allow for heterogeneity in the types of gun owners as Eric suggests. And the idea that we can change the shape of the curve through education, more responsible ownership, etc. Third, no academic study of social behavior is ever the final word. That goes for both Prof. Lott and Prof. Duggan’s work. I do find Duggan’s work more rigorous, but at the end of the day, two things are clear. (1) More high quality research is needed. (2) Our elected officials should make policy based on evidence, not just on ideologically driven beliefs.

To be clear, I do not know the right answer here. Personally, I tend to have libertarian tendencies, which make me very sympathetic to gun rights. But I care a lot about data and evidence, and based on my read of the evidence, it is hard to believe that “more guns” are the answer.